Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will be relieved on that last point. I was not going to mention the name of the formula, of course.
	We have no plans to change the formula at this stage. My noble friend, who is well versed in these issues, will know that the disparities in expenditure are due not just to the formula but reflect other aspects of the details of the expenditure allocations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are also specific considerations in each case. But I hear what he says—he has been pressing for a review for a considerable time. In a sense, the issue is reviewed every time we have a Comprehensive Spending Review because the allocation of resources is determined at that point.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course the Treasury looks at all aspects of expenditure elsewhere that help to enlighten it on how it should proceed for the future, but the noble Lord will recognise that there is a vast difference between organising expenditure for devolved administrations and organising expenditure in a federal structure, which is the Australian position. The noble Lord will also appreciate that the formula, as he indicated, was not the subject of debate during the time of the decisions with regard to devolution, and he will recognise, too, the strides that this Government are making to ensure that expenditure per head in regions is equalised by the process of a wide range of Government policies, which are helping to iron out some of the past inequalities.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have made a determined attempt to improve the ratios of expenditure between the regions in England and have had some success in bringing up to the standards of the best those which in the past have been poorly served. If we had to look an overall policy for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the same principles would obtain. As I have indicated, we are not proposing a wholesale revision. I add the obvious point that it is easier to countenance the concept of a wholesale revision than to deal with the Pandora's box once it is opened.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is referring to the recent case of Re AH and others in relation to Sudan. The court found that the Darfuri would not be at risk of persecution or other ill-treatment in Khartoum, but, in its interpretation of a legal test on refugee law, the court found that it would be "unduly harsh" to expect a non-Arab Darfuri to relocate to Khartoum, because they were ill-equipped for city living and the conditions which they would be likely to face in Khartoum. That issue is subject to appeal. We do not believe that it is right that someone should be considered to be a refugee simply because, although they could safely relocate within their own country to a place where they would not be at risk of persecution, they would, by doing so, face a drop in living standards to a level experienced by many of their compatriots. That is the issue of law that is subject to appeal.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Prime Minister discuss with President Mbeki the vote by the Pan-African Parliament— by a majority of 149 to 20—to send a fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe? Notwithstanding the fact that that was rejected contemptuously by the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe, do the Prime Minister and the Government think that President Mbeki and the other leaders of SADC could make a significant move forward if they pressed the ZANU-PF regime to accept that mission?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened to the debate with great interest and care. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, touched on what is at the heart of noble Lords' concerns—to seek further clarification on the way in which the process will work, how arrangements will kick in, how the system will operate on the ground and to reassure those operating in the field how commissioning and the development of a mixed economy of provision in this sector will operate. I well understand that concern.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, the debate took me back to a time when in local government I had to deal with CCT, the development of the contracting out of services from the local authority sector and embracing the private sector. Rightly, one of our concerns at that time was that there might be a compromise on quality, given the demand for further economies. We were right to make that argument at the outset. Over time there has been a development of thinking that has established the importance of specifying quality in contracts at the outset; that principle is at the heart of our consideration. That is where we have come to in this debate—the need to understand what quality means when we specify contracts.
	I understand the concerns that have been expressed in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, talked of cost-driven cuts and of her concern that they would impact on the way in which the service is developed. It is not our objective simply to drive down costs. That is not what this is about. It is not our objective to seek to cut the service—far from it. If noble Lords look at the history of this Government, they will see that we have invested in the Probation Service. Before we came into office, there had been a period of disinvestment, particularly in training. I argue that we have a good story to tell on training provision, and in the past few years we have invested some £40 million extra in training and reinstated its importance and value—and the Probation Service has access to it. We have used that to ratchet up the quality of services. This is not a cost-driven and cuts-driven exercise.
	However, there was much in our debate with which I agreed. I understood and agree with the spirit behind the amendment of the noble Baronesses, Lady Gibson and Lady Stern, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. As I made clear during our debate on Amendment No. 49, we are resolutely opposed to the setting of targets for the amount of provision to be made by any particular type of provider. I underline that we are not simply embarking on an exercise of setting targets for the amount of provision to be put out to competition and for contestability. That would run counter to what we are trying to achieve in this Bill, which is aimed squarely at enabling services to be commissioned from the best available provider.
	In our previous discussion, I quoted what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said on the subject in the other place. His words put our intentions beyond doubt. Indeed, I find it difficult to see how we could justify any other approach, and that is one reason why I am surprised that some Members of the Committee, including the noble Baroness on the opposite Bench, continue to argue for primacy for the public sector.
	I remind noble Lords of the principles that we want to underpin our approach to commissioning and contracting. As I said, the overriding principle is that we want to commission from the best available provider, but how will we decide who that is? The exact factors will depend on the individual circumstances but I reassure the Committee that "best available" does not necessarily mean "cheapest". Of course, value for money will be a key factor, and we would all argue that that is right as it is the public purse that we are talking about. However, the overall aim is not to save money but to raise standards and further the aims set out in Clause 2(4), which we debated in considerable depth last time we met.
	Therefore, we are looking at solutions which improve the quality of services provided to offenders, victims and communities and support end-to-end offender management. We will discuss standards in more detail under a later set of amendments but I can say now that we will expect all providers, from whichever sector, to deliver to the same high standards. That does not mean that we will expect them all to deliver in exactly the same way, because we want to foster innovation and creativity—I think there has been an acceptance from all sides of the Committee today that we need to develop innovation and creativity in this sector—but we will also ensure that there is a basic set of minimum standards with which everyone will comply.
	The noble Baronesses and the noble Lord propose placing criteria on the face of a statutory instrument. I am with my noble friend Lord Warner and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, here. I do not think that that is necessary or appropriate; it is legislative over-prescription. The overriding aims are already set out clearly in the legislation at Clause 2(4), and we propose to enshrine standards in legislation. We have also made it clear, on the record here in the Chamber, what our overall approach is on targets and best available providers.
	The amendment also proposes that the Secretary of State should publish a report explaining the basis on which individual contracting decisions are made. I understand why noble Lords might think that a statement of reason should be made but we are already striving for transparency in this regard. In fact, we treat very few elements of a contract as commercially confidential. The main exceptions are specific elements, such as cost models and intellectual property rights, and our approach in this respect is fully in line with normal commercial practice. However, we place unpriced copies of existing PFI contracts in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament, and we have provided, on request, information on areas such as financial sanctions and contract costs, with NOMS currently publishing performance data on private and public sector prison providers, as well as probation areas. The National Probation Service performance report is published on a quarterly basis on the NPS website.
	It is worth adding that, thanks to the earlier amendments that the Committee agreed, there is now also a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish plans setting out the way in which he proposes to commission services for the following year. Indeed, this requirement will also extend to trusts and other providers in respect of the services which they, too, wish to commission.
	We are already putting out a lot of information on the basis on which contracts will operate and be led, so transparency is already there with a lot of the detail that is contained in those publications. We do not think it right to over-prescribe in statute how the contracting process will work but we think that, in essence, we have the right balance. We understand that nervousness may exist in some noble Lords' minds, but we want to provide the opportunity for creative and innovative aspects in the way in which these contracts develop, because we think that there is added value in that.
	I reject the suggestion that this is a cost-cutting exercise; it is not. It is about enhancing the quality of standards. Over time, costs may rise as a product of this, but I do not want to predict that one way or the other. It is important that we secure value for money, that we become more effective in provision and that the service is fully attuned, however contracts work, to the need to reduce offending and reoffending rates. That is the direction of travel of our policy and that is our objective.
	Some specific questions were asked. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was rightly concerned about capacity building. We understand that. In the Cabinet Office additional research is taking place and consideration has been given to capacity building in the independent sector. Yes, we shall try to provide some support in that general direction and some of that support is already there.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was concerned to draw, in essence, probably on best example and best practice in commissioning. Yes, we want to ensure that those good practices are widely understood as their value is evident. From my experience in local government, one of the riches that we unlocked through the contracting process and the development of mixed economy of provision was simply that there was a greater sharing of best practice which added value to the way in which services were delivered through different providers.
	I have dealt with targets. In earlier Committee sittings, we have made it clear that we have no intention of setting targets for the amount of work to be contracted to other providers. We do not see the need for that. Perhaps I can offer a measure of reassurance to my noble friend Lady Gibson. On commissioning and contestability, who ends up with the work is, in a sense, not irrelevant, but misses the point. If the exercise can be directed to raising standards and improving the quality of provision, surely that is the most important overriding objective. Certainly, in the custodial sector, second time around Her Majesty's Prison Service won three out of the five market-tested exercises for providing prison facilities and custodial services. Bids for Buckley Hall, Blakenhurst and Manchester were won in-house. We could reasonably argue that that had the beneficial side effect of raising standards in those institutions. That points towards one of the profound benefits of the contracting process.
	I hope I have answered the questions and provided a measure of reassurance. The debate has been useful because it has focused on the key issue, which is using contestability to drive up quality in certain areas of provision. It has also focused on the importance of reducing reoffending and using the drive and initiative in the private sector and the voluntary sector to achieve that overriding objective. Having heard that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I rise to support both what my noble friend has said and the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I am interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said because obviously the other trusts we know about are primary care trusts. I wonder whether the degree of vagueness and lack of any kind of detail of what these trusts are—a matter we are discussing today—applies also to primary care trusts. Indeed, I would say that the vagueness and lack of clarity on the nature of these trusts, their likely size, number, geographical distribution and their composition or way of working, which are all entirely undefined, coupled with the lack of parliamentary procedure to establish them, appears extraordinary.
	Given that the probation boards are shortly to disappear, it is no wonder that the future is being viewed with such consternation and anxiety by the profession. From the Government side, it may seem perfectly normal, but if one is to put oneself into the mindset of people in the probation service, it is extremely worrying. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, even the timing of the conversion from individual boards to trusts is not clear. Nor are the criteria that will have to be met for the transition to be made. Given the extremely important role of the trusts, it is surely critical that such basic issues are clarified.
	Can the Minister give the Committee some idea of what criteria NOMS will be using in the integrated performance framework—which we understand it is developing to inform all decisions about public probation services—for those transitions? Will it consult the boards about that and make its thinking public before any vital decisions are made?
	Boards will need to know what are the criteria against which decisions will be made about conversion—how trust status is both gained and lost. They will need to know that to plan and to be able to decide whether to apply to be a trust in the first place. As a starting point, there should be much more detail in the Bill to give the process a proper judicial framework. The Probation Boards Association is also concerned that there should be an independent regulator while the process is under way to assess whether the criteria for trust status are met. It must be made quite clear that such decisions are independent of NOMS.
	Although it has already been agreed that courts services and core offender management will be reserved to the Probation Service, the timing of the proposed three-year period for offender management is still unclear. Presumably, it will be from the moment that a board achieves trust status, but that needs clarification. Can the Minister give us that clarity?
	If we can assume that the lead provider model is to be adopted by the new trusts—something on which the boards are basing a lot of their thinking—for commissioning, perhaps the new trusts will have greater freedom than have boards hitherto in both practice and multi-agency working. The proposed, partially deregulated environment could be productive. They need clear assurances from the Secretary of State that there will be consultation on the new freedoms to innovate and become efficient.
	It is clearly vital that the essentially local nature of the commissioning by trusts is maintained in conjunction with the co-operative working that currently exists with local criminal justice boards. These are complex, interdependent, multi-dimensional arrangements and are working well. Regional commissioning on a collaborative basis with other boards is also practical and desirable. It follows that the boundaries of the new trusts must not be so different from the old boards if chaos is not to ensue when provision is fragmented. Otherwise, everyone loses out, especially the offender and the public.
	If the Secretary of State himself makes contracts directly with providers, that should be for services that cover more than one trust boundary, but should not undermine the local lead provider model. In contracting out, it is also vital that national standards are maintained and put on a statutory footing, so that the delivery of services through the contracting process does not vary from area to area. In turn, they should be backed by statutory duties for the ROMs to sustain the standards applied to the boards.
	Ultimately, what matters is, whether restricted or contracted out, the service to the public is effective and offenders are rehabilitated. There must be clarity, openness and consultation throughout, so that everyone is in the loop and knows what the issues are. At present, however, the thinking is so shrouded in mystery and lack of clarity that it is very difficult to plan or contribute to a workable new way of working.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I was clearly at fault in being slow off the mark, because Amendment No. 62 is in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lord Wallace. I wished to make a similar point before the Minister summed up. I apologise for being slow.
	Our amendment places in the Bill a requirement for there to be a legal obligation for one member of a trust to be a magistrate in the probation trust area and another to be a local councillor in that area. There is no such requirement in the Bill at present. It is axiomatic, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, that new trusts should, as far as possible, be representative of their local communities and consist not simply of local business people, important though business people are. Indeed, business expertise has been part of many existing boards. The one that I know well is in Chester, in the north-west.
	The whole community must have confidence and faith in its probation services, particularly if it is expected to be involved, as it will be, in the rehabilitation of ex-offenders and their reintegration and acceptance into the community. If reoffending is to decrease, let alone stop, all sorts of local groups, churches and others must be engaged. Unless there are meaningful connections with the probation trusts, making that sort of confidence real will be very difficult and the vital reintegration is unlikely to be achieved. The provision should be community-led and will work only if local membership of trusts can create the links with the probation services and the understanding that is required.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing our amendment.

Viscount Tenby: I thank the Minister for her customary courtesy and kindness in providing us with this opportunity. She will have observed that, rather craftily, I have already said by means of asking a question most of what I wanted to say. I warmly support the amendment that was convincingly moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
	A great play has been made about businessmen. It is as if magistrates are a race apart and are a group of eccentric nonentities who do nothing but give people fines for not having a television licence or speeding. In fact, they are representative of society as a whole and there are some excellent men and women in the magistracy. I would go further. In a quarter of a century on the bench, I have met some of the best and finest businessmen and women that I have met in my long and undistinguished business career. I should declare an interest as an ex-magistrate who is now extinct. This is an important point that I am sorry to labour, but the Minister was absolutely right in being more amenable to the idea some months ago, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. I ask the Minister to reconsider this, because many people feel strongly about it.

Lord Ramsbotham: I am also grateful to the Minister for giving us time to speak. My contribution is not huge and I had thought it appropriate to speak a little later after other noble Lords.
	I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, mentioned the Cheshire Probation Board. Noble Lords may be interested to know who it consists of, because it seems to be a model of what trusts could be. It is chaired by the ex-chief probation officer of Manchester who well understands the whole process, and includes the director of corporate banking of the Royal Bank of Scotland, a senior manager from the Liverpool and north-west Land Registry who understands regional government, a personal manager and senior diversity officer from the Post Office in the north-west, a local councillor, a magistrate who happens to be the chair of a local NHS trust, the assistant chief constable, the assistant director of the Children's Society who represents the voluntary sector, the head of the Youth Service, the head of heritage tourism who represents the corporate sector and the ex-governor of Her Majesty's Prison in Manchester. That is eleven people.
	I was surprised to hear the Minister suggest that boards wanted the quorums reduced. In fact, that board deliberately wanted to expand to obtain representation of all sectors in the area. Its members feel that they are ideally placed to do precisely what trusts are meant to do. They are also represented on the local area criminal justice board and the criminal justice consultative committee—so they have fingers in all pies. This is precisely what trusts want—to be linked into the local community, if they are allowed to be.
	My only query with the amendments remains the issue of the judge, which has already been discussed. The key factor in all of this is the triumvirate of the police, the courts and probation, which has been at the heart of the management of offenders in the community since 1907. That factor must be retained and represented on the sort of trust that I mentioned.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I, too, apologise for speaking later than I should have done for the same reasons given by other noble Lords. Having heard about the expertise that is represented on the Cheshire Probation Board, it is puzzling as to why such people would not in future be eligible to be members of trusts. The amendments suggest that it is exactly such people who should put themselves forward for selection under the Nolan principles—with the exception of judges, who, I understand, have agreed that they do not want to chair the boards, which is fine. I would be satisfied by that. However, my point is that if they exist already, why do we need to change them? We can change the names from "probation boards" to "probation trusts", but is there any further need to do more than that? I must declare an interest as an ex-magistrate, but what has been said about the wide knowledge of magistrates and their businesslike approach to the job of sitting on a probation board or trust is exactly what would qualify them. What extra expertise are we looking for that does not exist already?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this not-so-short debate on a core issue of how membership of the trusts should be formed and how they will best serve our communities in the future. I made it clear that Amendments Nos. 60 and 64 are probing amendments. I shall leave those aside and carefully read what the Minister has said on them.
	On Amendment No. 61, the Minister said in her rebuttal of my argument that magistrates should have a place as of right on probation trusts. She said that local councillors have a very specific role in local accountability. I argue that magistrates have a very specific role because of their knowledge of the criminal justice system. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, were absolutely right to draw attention to the range of skills that must be represented on the trusts. If the trusts are to be successful, there must be no clones.
	I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about the importance of working in partnership. That is where magistrates' skills are vital for the future success of trusts; with their knowledge of the local community, they can work in partnership with local authorities. The Minister was right to say that people should not be appointed unless they are the best for the job; this should not be a quota-filling exercise. That is absolutely right. However, through her own amendment, which puts in place someone who is a member of a local authority, she recognises the special ability of some people. I wish to do the same by recognising the special expertise of magistrates. Therefore, I shall withdraw Amendment No. 60, but I shall press Amendment No. 61.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: Amendment No. 65 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. Schedule 1 transfers the determination of terms and conditions for probation staff to probation trusts. This amendment keeps collective bargaining at a national level and retains the status quo. It is always difficult and demoralising for staff who are carrying out the same jobs to be paid on different pay scales. Experience has shown that when that happens, it creates what used to be known in the car industry as "leap-frogging"; that is, one company's pay jumps over that of another, so spurring an upward spiral. This introduces pay that is not in the system and diverts considerable regional resources in the yearly merry-go-round of pay competition.
	National collective bargaining maintains probation as a profession across England and Wales. If each trust is allowed to have different terms and conditions for probation staff, it would be detrimental to the efficiency and effectiveness of the service. Although the Probation Service has been made up of a number of local probation employers—there are currently 42 probation areas in England and Wales—since the 1940s, there has been national collective bargaining. There is also "continuous service" for staff moving between different areas—which means that service-related entitlements, such as annual leave, are not affected by moves between probation areas—and all staff are covered by the local government pension scheme. This means that there is a national professional career structure that enables staff to move between probation areas without detriment.
	This free flow of staff between areas has been as much to the benefit of the service as to that of the staff. It has enabled enhanced staff professional career development, reduced staff wastage and ensured maximum benefit from the training investment made in staff. National collective bargaining underpins the very existence of the national probation profession. Probation Service pay and conditions have recently been modernised, and the Probation Service pay modernisation agreement was implemented with effect from April 2006. This modernised pay structure has introduced harmonised terms and conditions for all grades, new flexibilities for employers and a job evaluation system for all grades. Geographical and market forces arrangements are also in place to enable employers to take account of the particular circumstances they find themselves in without needing to move away from the national agreement. Separate collective bargaining arrangements for each probation employer would be inefficient and would necessitate an increased role for human resources and industrial relations for each employer. In the interests of efficiency and effectiveness, and in order to ensure the continuation of the probation profession, it is important that national collective bargaining for the Probation Service is retained and is provided for in the legislation.
	Needless to say, Napo supports this amendment, and I thank it for its briefing. I beg to move.

Lord Ramsbotham: I, too, support the amendment. I am particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said. As I have said on a number of occasions in Committee, it is hugely important to remember the people who are delivering the service. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has, quite rightly, drawn attention to the recently published, on 1 June, performance report of the National Probation Service, which shows the best figures ever. Virtually everything has exceeded its target, some by up to 25 per cent.
	I must say though that, as a soldier, I was concerned at the figure that was not up to standard; that is, sickness absence. It is at 12 per cent, which is 3 per cent higher than it should be. I was always taught as a young soldier that when you had signs of sickness, malingering or whatever, there was something wrong with morale and that you should take it seriously. Therefore, I believe that it would be divisive not to have a national system for looking after the staff's financial well-being and their career and to support properly every member of the probation staff as part of a national structure to support people carrying out a national role. The way the amendment has been put has covered all those points extremely well.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for the way she now accepts that the thrust of what we are doing is in the right direction. I am heartened by that, and I agree with her. The qualification and expertise currently available to us is at least at a level that I would aspire for us to continue to have. We are not suggesting that there is going to be material change. Throughout all this I have tried to emphasise that it does not matter whether it is the public, private or voluntary sector that is doing the work; it is the standard that has to be assured and delivered. The qualification set that we will ask of anyone who is contracting with us will be the same. If they can provide that quality of service, they will in due course, once Clause 4 and the other issues change, be able to compete for that service.
	As to the qualification probation officers hold—whether a CQSW, a diploma in social work or, for the majority of the workforce, a diploma in probation studies—I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, says. He knows, as I do, that the debate is ongoing about what the qualification should be, how long it should last for, how we should develop the subsidiary workers, whether there should be a link between them and how they get on to the professional level, how we can ensure that they do not have to start from scratch and that we give proper credence to their experience. I am sure that debate will continue with ever-increasing vigour, and will not be diminished.
	On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, he will know that there have been two judicial reviews with regard to those standards. There is a question about how we can get the Parole Board reports done. Those matters are continuing. The noble Lord should know that those two judicial reviews are sub judice, and therefore I cannot talk about them directly, but the Secretary of State for Justice is also seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords in the case of Johnson, which held that where there was a delay in considering parole in determining sentences, a prisoner's damages would follow. All that is under review, but I assure him that the need to have speedy, accurate, well resourced and appropriate reports available to the Probation Board is well understood, and is being energetically pursued.
	I hope I have now replied to all the issues raised. I have wrapped up the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I thank my noble friend Lord Warner, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. On that basis, I hope your Lordships will be content not to move any of the amendments and to allow the appropriate short adjournment.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am pleased to note the return of the noble Lord, Lord Laird. He has obviously had a return to robust health by the fact that he is here at the first available opportunity. I am sorry if I have missed his attendance previously, but I am pleased to see him back in his place after quite a long absence.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for his remarks, although it is better left unsaid.
	This is purely a technicality. If we could have planned for everything, we would have had everything done at the right time, but the situation was not like that with restoration. It was not done under the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act, because it is purely a technicality, and it is the sort of thing that the power in Section 55 is intended for—so there is nothing abnormal about that. I fully agree that there were debates at the time. In fact, during the suspension Section 55 was not available because of the special arrangements under the 2000 Act, and there was a discussion between the two Governments at the time about how this would be done by an exchange of letters. So it was done to classify those letters as a relevant agreement, so they were covered by the legislation. That was purely for tidying-up purposes.
	I have no doubt that there may be other issues lurking round, although I do not know because there is nothing in my brief about that. The fact of the matter is that there was a fairly long suspension of the Assembly, when were trying to do business as usual for the people on the island of Ireland.
	Section 55 of the 1998 Act provides us with an enabling power to deal with the implementation bodies. We are bringing this one forward as swiftly as possible following the restoration, but it is an appropriate use of the legislation.
	The Special EU Programmes Body is operating on a statutory footing, on the basis of the unamended implementation bodies order. The amendment adds a reference to the latest supplementary agreement with the Irish, therefore making clear our mutual understanding about the remit of the body in relation to EU funding schemes. Nothing is changed in how the body is working, and to the best of my knowledge nothing is affected by the work that has gone on in the past month.
	With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, I do not think that the issue of retrospectivity comes into it because the relevant agreement in the letters was there anyway—it has simply moved from one piece of legislation to another. That is perfectly straightforward. No one has raised any questions, and there is nothing in terms of spending. As for the way in which the programmes are being done, the regulatory rules under the EU are all being fulfilled; as far as I am aware, they fulfil the remit of the programmes. So it is not even a lacuna in that sense. We are simply in the normal course of things bringing up to date the provisions for Northern Ireland.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, I may be able to help the Minister as to the reason for the question. After suspension in 2002, further arrangements were made to provide for the care and maintenance of the north/south co-operation—and I think that that is the third agreement cited at the beginning of Mr Hain's letter in July 2006. Associated with that exchange of letters were clear understandings, incorporated in correspondence, between the Government and the Northern Ireland parties whereby to ensure that the spirit of the agreement and legislation was fully honoured there were arrangements to consult with those parties when any significant decision had to be taken under the care and maintenance arrangements. I know that in the previous Parliament the undertaking was fulfilled, but I am not sure that it was being fulfilled in 2005 and 2006, which is why I intervened.

Lord Adonis: I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I simply say yes to the noble Baroness; I agree that more needs to be done in this area. Precisely for that reason, we introduced Section 6 and the duties that apply in respect of it. It is the reason we have produced Removing Barriers to Achievement and a whole set of other initiatives to promote the needs of young people with disabilities. It is why we have the Disability Discrimination Act and are imposing a set of new duties on local authorities, schools and other public bodies to see that they take these issues increasingly seriously. It is why we are increasing budgets in this area. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said. I am grateful for her forbearance and for that of the noble Lord. I hope that the House will agree to the regulations.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Throughout the Bill, we have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, say that there is not much between us and this time I can say it—it is true for once. I appreciate that, if there is to be any success in the roll out of contestability, there have to be penalties. I still think that there will be a change in culture among some charities. That may not necessarily all be unwelcome, but it will be a very hard experience. I hope that we end up with charities that are stronger, because they have the most marvellous abilities.
	Amendment No. 83, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, provides a very helpful enlargement of the scope of my amendment. If I were to vote on mine, I would say yes to Amendment No. 83 first. At the beginning, I made it clear that I welcome what the Government are doing as a first step—I suspect that others may wish to press them further—and I certainly support Amendment No. 69 and shall not press mine.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I rather approve of all the amendments in this group for different reasons. They bring together the framework in which standards can be maintained. I was particularly struck by the fact that the Minister's amendment has the slightly weasel words "as far as practicable", which give the Government a let out, whereas the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, relates to penalties.
	Returning to the contribution of the voluntary sector—which we all agree is so important in this—and the danger of it getting too much into the national framework of what a Government do, I am reminded of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who was on the advisory committee of NCVO on which I sit, who constantly warned against any reduction in the innovative and constant regeneration of ideas to meet modern problems that the voluntary sector is there for.
	It is likely that there will be contractual arrangements with voluntary organisations, and I am sure that that is absolutely right, and, if the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is accepted in principle, there may well be penalties, but what about the other way? What if the Government do not live up to their contribution to get the contract entered into delivered on time? Have the Government thought about that? I picked up an idea from an earlier comment that they might well be prepared to renegotiate the terms and conditions of the service. Should there not be a little bit of give and take both ways? Should penalties not operate in both directions? I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support my noble friend's final comment. One of the concerns I have had in this short debate about these amendments is the rather one-way track. Having been part of a service delivery that was assessed as one of the best in the country in the voluntary sector for treating, in conjunction with probation, some of the most dangerous sex offenders, I sometimes think we have things a little skewed when we think that the only good services come from the statutory services. I say that as someone who worked in local government for years, and who believes fervently in local government and statutory and probation services.
	We need a balance. I am unhappy about penalties for very much the reason that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said; that I do not know how you get it two ways on. A number of voluntary organisations are waiting for large amounts of money from the Home Office—and I criticise the Government fairly fulsomely for that. It is really penalty enough to lose your contract; that should be the penalty. Contracts should be given for long enough periods but with review dates. Those review dates should mean that the contract can be withdrawn if the provisions are not being met.
	I, too, am interested in what happens if it is not happening the other way on—I love the answer to that question. However, I am not happy with that form of amendment because of the difficulties it will create within the relationship as it is one way.

Baroness Stern: I, too, follow what my noble friend Lord Listowel said. I support the idea of national standards but I worry very much about their content. It would be fair to say that the current national standards are very narrow in their conception. They concentrate on processes—the number of days that must elapse before something happens and the amount of time that has to be devoted to something. Does the Minister have in mind standards that would really constitute a professional framework, and which would cover matters such as personalisation and individualisation of the service offered, the amount of contact with the home and the family, home visits that are made, complaints procedures for the people being supervised, and whether the requirements of the Human Rights Act will apply?
	Is that how the Government see national standards or will we just have a rehash of current ones which are process driven and do not really tell you anything about the quality of the experience received by the person who gets the service?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been a very interesting debate. I have listened very carefully to all the contributions made. I am trying to draw the threads together. I thought the points offered by noble Lords sought to find a golden thread but were at the same time disparate. I was also encouraged by what noble Lords said. We are all searching for something of a holy grail about how the contract and commissioning process should work and to find a way in which we can ensure that things improve and that we get that constant process of improvement. I am greatly encouraged by that.
	It is particularly nice to hear my noble friend Lord Judd offering some words of understanding and, I think, praise for the approach being adopted. The noble Lord appreciates with his vast experience, particularly in the voluntary sector, the way in which the voluntary sector and non-governmental organisations can bring innovation and fresh approaches and ways of working.
	Having heard all of that, I then listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, had to say. She said that she was very much in favour of national standards. I made it clear in my earlier commentary that we were in favour of minimum standards. But then she went on to say that while she was a supporter of those she was worried that the Government would apply those standards too narrowly and that we would regress in some way.
	I invite the Committee to have a more encouraging view of what we are trying to deliver here. We all understand that there is the same set of problems, and we are all after the same set of objectives—to improve the way in which we care for, treat and approach the management of offenders. There is an understandable fear that somehow we will not be rigorous enough in applying terms of contracts; but that, on the other hand, we may get the disbenefits of flexibility. That is why I am more than happy with the way in which we have argued through our amendments.
	To try to pick up some of the points to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred on her amendment, the first part of it requires standards to be made by regulation. We think that that is inappropriate. It is not consistent with current practice. I recollect that practice is very much informed by standards that the Secretary of State has set out, and that has worked well in the past. What we have tried to achieve is based on wide consultation within and across the service and we think that we have always approached this openly and transparently. We have benefited from that. In essence, we are building on current good practice.
	The noble Baroness also made the case for financial penalties—over and above other penalties, it seemed to me. I would argue that our approach is more graduated. I argued earlier that financial penalties are appropriate, and I am very familiar with that culture; I had to implement CCT, and I did not always like it. However, although we could ultimately end the contract, before we got to that point we could exact a financial penalty. We could also seek to negotiate to vary the terms of the contract if that was sensible in the light of experience because the service was not as it had been described in the original documentation.
	In his amendment, my noble friend Lord Judd seeks to qualify the areas covered by the national service agreement. That takes us back to our previous debate. Here, I argue that my noble friend misunderstands the purpose of standards, which are primarily about delivery. Of course he is right that the quality and experience of those trained to carry out the contract, their work, their background knowledge and so on is very important, but we cannot begin to stipulate that in legislation. That is where we need to strike a balance and I argue that we have the balance about right. This is not a perfect science; it is an iterative process; it is something that we have to turn to at all times. However, we have adopted an approach that means that we set minimum standards, set in essence by the Secretary of State; that we set them at the highest possible level; that they are understood across the service; and that we built on experience based on current provision.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked: could the provider get standards changed? Would there be room for negotiation? Of course it would be open to any provider to suggest to NOMS at headquarters level that a standard or standards be changed if it thinks that that would help to improve performance. That goes back to the issue to which I referred earlier. In the operation of a contract, in the light of experience, it is important and necessary to reflect on that and, perhaps, to vary the way in which the standards of service are to be delivered. Ultimately, that will be for the Secretary of State to determine based on the advice of those who are closest to the service and understand exactly how the service should operate.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, asked about the operation of the old National Probation Directorate. In essence, the headquarter functions that the National Probation Directorate used to carry out are now carried out at the centre of NOMS in the Ministry of Justice. They have not gone away—they are still there and are still very important—and the director of probation remains the line manager for the 42 chiefs of the Probation Service.
	I think that I have answered the various points that were made in this debate. It was a very valuable debate, and it will inform the way in which we operate this policy. However, we should ensure that we retain the necessary flexibility. Because of that, it would not be right to put the standards into the Bill in the way in which noble Lords have argued. Indeed, I think it would be extremely unusual if we were to do so, particularly in the light of my experience of operating contracts at local government level. The noble Baroness will be well aware of those issues from her own political experience in the past. I understand some of the concerns that have been expressed about the way in which the service will operate through the commissioning and contract process, but, with the knowledge and experience that we have gained in this field and in other parts of the criminal justice system, which have benefited from this approach, we can have considerable confidence in the way in which this policy rolls out.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments No. 71 to 81, as amendments to Amendment No. 70, not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 70:
	After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
	"Annual plans etc
	(1) The Secretary of State shall at least once in every year consult the Welsh Ministers, and such other persons as he thinks fit, about the provision that should be made for the purposes mentioned in section 2(1) for the following year.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall, before the end of each year, publish an annual plan for the following year which sets out the way in which the Secretary of State proposes to—
	(a) discharge his functions under section 2(1) and (2) during that year; and(b) carry out any arrangements which he expects to be in force under section 3(4) for that year.
	(3) The Secretary of State shall have regard to the annual plan published under subsection (2) for any year—
	(a) in discharging his functions under section 2(1) and (2) during that year; and(b) in making or carrying out arrangements undersection 3(4) for that year.
	(4) Arrangements made by the Secretary of State under section 3(2) with a probation trust shall require the trust to publish an annual plan for each year in which it expects to carry out any specified activities.
	(5) Arrangements made by the Secretary of State under section 3(2) with a person other than a probation trust shall, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, require that person to publish an annual plan for each year in which it expects to carry out any specified activities.
	(6) In subsections (4) and (5)—
	"annual plan" means a plan setting out the way in which the probation trust or other person (as the case may be) proposes to carry out any specified activities during the year to which the plan relates;
	"specified activities", in relation to a probation trust or other person with whom arrangements under section 3(2) are made, means activities of a description specified in those arrangements for the purposes of subsection (4) or (5) above.
	(7) In this section "year" means a period of 12 months ending with 31st March."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved.]
	Clause 7 [Officers of providers of probation services]:
	[Amendments Nos. 85 to 87 not moved.]
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [The inspectorate]:
	[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 89 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Approved premises]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 are probing amendments to ask the Minister to clarify a point made in paragraph 71 of the Explanatory Notes. On this occasion the Minister will not be able to say, "Well, this was fully debated in another place", because those debates did not touch on this. Clause 11 is intended to clarify the power of certain bodies to share data for any purpose that is listed in subsection (4). The list is very wide. It includes,
	"the probation purposes ... the performance of functions relating to prisons or prisoners ... and any other purpose connected with the management of offenders (including the development ... of policies relating to matters connected with the management of offenders)".
	Subsection (3) provides the power to share data,
	"but only if the disclosure is necessary or expedient for ... the purposes mentioned in subsection (4)".
	Paragraph 71 of the Explanatory Notes states:
	"That enables the bodies listed in subsection (1) to share data with one another. It also enables disclosure between those bodies and the bodies listed in subsection (2). The clause has no application to disclosures between bodies listed insubsection (2)".
	But it goes on to say that,
	"there may be powers elsewhere that cover these".
	I found the words "may be" a very strange indication. Are there or are there not such powers elsewhere? If so, where are they and what impact will they have on the operation of the powers in the Bill? I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 11 seeks to put beyond doubt the different organisations, public, private or third sector, that can share information with each other to ensure effective offender management. It clearly sets out the reciprocal rights of data-sharing between organisations and states that information can be shared only for certain defined purposes—I am sure the noble Baroness understands that—namely, the purposes of probation, the performance of functions relating to prisons or prisoners, and the management of offenders, which also includes the purposes of research, development and assessment of policies connected with the management of offenders. In practical terms, this means that one prison operator can inform another operator of security information that might be relevant to handling a prisoner when he is transferred from one company's jail to another, or that a provider of probation services will be able to share an assessment of an offender's risk factors with a local authority that will provide him with housing. Not only will it enable the system of managing offenders to function more effectively, it will also provide better research data. Additionally, it will enable us to evaluate and more effectively tailor rehabilitation programmes for offenders to reduce reoffending.
	The amendment would provide that another item set out in the subsequent amendment can be listed in this clause. The insertion proposes that a listed party should be able to share information with another listed party. My understanding is that the proposed disclosure of information using this clause will have to be fully compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the common law of confidence in the usual way. We argue that the amendment is unnecessary, and that to allow those bodies with a lesser interest in offender management to share information with one another under this clause would risk creating the potential for confusion and, I would argue very firmly, the inadvertent misuse of the power. That is precisely what the clause itself is designed to avoid. Listed bodies are unlikely to need to share offender information with one another on a routine basis, and if information is required, it is much more appropriate that they speak directly with the source of the information from the agreed list.
	Exchanges between the two parties as suggested in the subsequent amendment would not be authorised by this clause, and giving them the power to do so would raise real concerns that perhaps the noble Baroness might share. The purpose of the clause is to make clear that nothing in any way removes or modifies the legal safeguards to which any proposal to share data is automatically subject. I am sure that the amendment is probing in nature, but those are the reasons why we could not accept this approach and why Clause 11 is included in the Bill.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the amendment. She introduced it by saying that the power the Government had been seeking was unusual and that they have ended up with a power that is not unusual. To say that the power originally sought was unusual is certainly an understatement. These, of course, are Henry VIII powers and, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said, it looks especially carefully at such powers which enable the amendment of future Acts, as the full scope of the power cannot be ascertained when it is given.
	We also look very cautiously and carefully at such matters and we were surprised that the Government sought such a power in this event. The power as originally tabled was sufficiently broad to enable the Data Protection Act 1998 to be overridden and, of course, to amend future Acts. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out, the power to amend future Acts requires sufficient justification, which it found had not been provided on this occasion.
	I am glad that the Government thought fit to respond properly to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but it shows that both that august committee and the House need to keep an eagle eye on the Government to make sure that they do not try the same thing again.

Lord Ramsbotham: moved Amendment No. 97:
	Clause 12, page 8, line 29, leave out "4" andinsert "4(2)(a)"

Lord Ramsbotham: We have a number of amendments relating to Clause 12. In addition to the two amendments I have tabled with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, which are largely textual, we have tabled the Question whether Clause 12 shall stand part. Then there is Amendment No. 99, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which contains a new clause for new procedures. I am in some difficulty over the order of these. We have spent considerable time today debating Clause 4 and all its problems, and the need to have clearly stated what the real probation issues are that should stay firmly in the hands of the public sector. We have been through all that, and we have reached a considerable consensus about which items are likely to be put out to tender after three years, which might be tendered in the future and which might be tendered immediately.
	I hope that, in the spirit of concession that we have just heard over the previous clause, the Minister will take away what has been said today on the whole issue of Clause 4, which we could then perhaps debate in more detail on Report—in which case I suggest that Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 should be taken in the context of Clause 4 as a whole. Therefore, although we have it down that the Secretary of State may repeal, that also ought to be considered in great detail when we discuss the issue of Clause 4 itself. That is a somewhat draconian measure, which is why I suggested that the Bill should not provide that the Secretary of State should be able, by order, to eliminate or change something that has had the full and undivided attention of this Committee for several minutes, almost hours, this afternoon. I stand by my recommendation, but I suspect it is too late to start debating the very important amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and am fully conscious that we should reserve the rest of the Clause 12 discussion until we resume next Monday. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I made it clear at Second Reading, as reported at col. 128 of Hansard on 17 April, that I regard the limitation in Clause 4 to be fundamental to the Bill. I chose my words very carefully. It is a matter of policy, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee observed at paragraph 28 of its report. The committee was right to say that, and we find it strange that the Government have also inserted the means for removing the safeguard in that clause by statutory instrument in Clause 12.
	I gave a commitment at Second Reading that we wished to look at Clauses 4 and 12 very carefully in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is right that we should be looking at Clause 12 through the gateway given to us when we talked about Clause 4. The difficulty is that we have not yet heard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who wishes to remove Clause 12 altogether. We may yet reach Clause 12 stand part tonight, in which case we may have the opportunity to hear from him, although it may not be until next Monday.
	Any progress towards contestability should proceed cautiously. When the Government made the concession on Clause 4 at the 11th hour in another place—on Report—the Minister, Mr Sutcliffe, said that it was brought forward in that spirit. He said (at col. 960 of the Official Report of 28 February 2007) that he accepted that the House still had concerns about the pace and scale of change, and about what might happen in the future. That is an understatement if ever I heard one.
	The reality was clear: the amendment was brought forward only because the Government Whips thought that they would lose the Bill at Third Reading if they did not and it was the only way of heading off a significant rebellion from their own ranks at the time. Clause12 has the air of something rushed into a Bill to enable the Government to get their legislation via the secondary route that they would not have achieved by the primary route.
	My honourable friend Mr Edward Garnier made it clear that we would not enter into arguments about what should be subject to contestability and at what stage we were happy for it all to be open to contestability under the proper conditions. Those arguments lie at the core of objections to the removal of Clause 4 by the statutory instrument powers in Clause 12.
	The difficulty today is that so far we have not heard from the Government their justification for Clause 12. This is their opportunity to give that justification. The one given in another place smacked of a Government throwing a provision into the Bill to get out of a hole. There has to be a better justification than that for the statutory instrument route in Clause 12 and I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to give it. It is extremely opportune that we have reached this amendment at this stage; it means that I will have the opportunity to reflect between now and next Monday on the appropriateness of my Amendment No. 99, which would take a significantly different route in trying to square the circle. It tries to find a way out of the impasse between those who do not want Clause 12 at all and those who do.
	It is important that the Minister gives us the justification for using the route the Government have here for removing something as significant as Clause 4 from primary legislation. I agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that it is fundamental to the Bill.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Clause 12 confers a power on the Secretary of State to repeal Clause 4, either partially or in its entirety, by means of an order. The order-making power under Clause 12 will be used if—and I emphasise if—at a future date the Government decide that it is the appropriate time to open up all or part of this area of work to non-public sector providers. An order under this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure by virtue of Clause 33(3)(b) to ensure that such a decision is subject to the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.
	In practice, this means that the Secretary of State will not be able to contract with providers from outside the public sector without further votes, both in this place and in the other. As I have said, we would bring forward such a proposition only if we were fully satisfied that appropriate safeguards were in place, and we would have to convince both Houses that this was the case.
	I hope that in the explanations we have had throughout today and earlier in Committee we have all recognised that these proposals represent a significant change in the way that probation services are delivered. By these proposals, I mean the ones set out in this Bill. While we are eager to reap the benefits that the changes will bring, public protection remains our number one priority. Nothing must interfere with the day-to-day management of offenders. We intend therefore, as I have said on a number of occasions already, to proceed cautiously and carefully. The new arrangements will be introduced in a phased and measured way to achieve that.
	Part of the process of getting this right is to ensure that we listen carefully to all those involved in implementing the proposals. One of the most consistent concerns expressed has been in regard to the work that probation does in relation to courts, especially in preparing reports. That has been echoed throughout our debates but it was strongly there in debates in the other place too. Therefore it is imperative that we retain the confidence of the court in the report writer. The courts rely, as a number of noble Lords have said in earlier debates, on the expertise that probation staff can bring to bear in assessing the risk posed by the offender, the circumstances of the offence and the appropriate disposals. This bond of trust is an integral part of ensuring that the offender receives the most appropriate sentence. We fully sympathise with these concerns and we have listened.
	I hope that I have explained as clearly as I can that we will not seek to open up the core offender management work to competition until at least 2010. However, we recognise that there are particular issues around the work that probation does in relation to courts. While we do not rule out for all time the possibility of some of this work being done in the voluntary, charitable or private sectors, we recognise that those in the public sector are currently the experts and it will take some time before providers in other sectors are in a position to deliver this service to the standard that we require. So we agree that it would not be appropriate to open up this part of the work to other providers until such time as we can be sure that the necessary safeguards are in place.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord says about that but I ask him to reflect that we are already undertaking that sort of work in partnership in a mixed economy. The close alignment between the work done now by the voluntary sector and the public sector in particular, is being done in a conjoined, partnership way. I know that the noble Lord is not suggesting that we take a step backwards. We have to accept the reality that bodies in other sectors have developed the level of expertise which enables them and entitles them to do this work now. We are hugely grateful to those people for doing that work with us and for us.
	Clause 4(1) provides that the Secretary of State may make contractual or other arrangements for "restricted probation provision" only with a probation trust or other public body. Clause 4(2) defines "restricted probation provision" as the giving of assistance to courts in determining the appropriate sentence to pass, or making any other decision, in respect of a person charged with or convicted of an offence.
	The provision is therefore cast quite widely. As one would expect, it covers advice on sentencing, in the form of pre-sentence reports, but it also covers the provision of general advice, bail information and advice on enforcement issues through the prosecution of breaches of community orders. That is quite wide.
	Clause 12 provides for this restriction to be lifted by means of an order subject to affirmative resolution. Clause 12(1) provides a power to repeal this clause in its entirety. Clause 12(2) clarifies that the order repealing this clause can specify that it does so only in relation to specific aspects of court work. As this situation develops and there is a growth, which we expect, in expertise in other fields which is appropriate and safe, it gives an opportunity for the Government of the day to come back to Parliament and say, "On the following basis we now believe that it is appropriate for this limitation to be removed in relation to all, part or any of the matter". That gives us flexibility and an opportunity which we think is very valuable because, if both Houses thought that it was appropriate, it would allow, through the affirmative resolution procedure, for there to be a gradual lifting of the provision if that was deemed to be the most appropriate development in the circumstances that prevailed.
	Amendments Nos. 97 and 98, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would restrict that power. They would mean that the power to repeal would apply only to Clause 4(2)(a) rather than to the whole of Clause 4. Clause 4(2)(a) forms part of the definition of "restricted probation provision" in Clause 4. It makes clear that "restricted probation provision" must be provision which is made for a purpose inClause 2(1)(a) or (b). Clause 4(2)(b) clarifies that this provision must also relate to the giving of assistance to courts. The noble Lord's amendments would restrict all the work that probation does in relation to courts to the public sector for all time.
	That is not a sensible way to proceed. It is right to leave open the possibility of some or all aspects of court work being contracted outside the public sector in due course, as other providers develop their expertise and the new arrangements bed in. That may be appropriate but it is absolutely not on the agenda at the moment, and the current arrangements would be changed only if the Government were able to persuade both Houses of Parliament that it was the right thing to do. That strikes a sensible balance. It gives a cast-iron guarantee, to those inside this House and outside it, that we will take a responsible and measured approach to implementing the changes.
	I know that many in the voluntary and private sector believe that we are being timorous, and that we should be more bold and go more quickly into the issue. We have listened to that but, where we are dealing with such a sensitive issue and have to build confidence and make sure that people feel comfortable about the change, this is the most appropriate and proportionate way forward. It gives us a balance. We get the safety and security that we need for the moment, allow the market to develop, build the relationships and partnerships, have the standards, deliver in a way that makes sense to people, and then think that—if we end up being where I certainly hope we will be—we will have built a consensus to enable us to move forward. Members of the Committee need to be very conscious that the affirmative resolution procedure is a powerful opportunity in a situation such as this where we allow a part-evolution, because it allows both Houses to say yes—or no—to this development and speed in a way that makes a great deal of sense.
	For that reason, I hope that my noble friend will feel content not to oppose the stand part Question in due course; that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will not pursue the matter tonight, and that he may consider not doing so on Report or Third Reading; and that I might persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to think really carefully about whether she needs to exercise herself unduly on Monday.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I always enjoy exercise in response to the noble Baroness. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will excuse me if I make a couple of points.
	The noble Baroness had to address herself to two issues, both policy and process. My questions were predominantly about process—whether this was the right constitutional way to go about removing a clause that is fundamental to the Bill. I do not feel that she has yet assured me on that point. She referred to the fact that the Government putting the clause into the Bill was very much part of how they were bringing their planned policy forward, and that it was in response to her right honourable and honourable friends in another place saying, "We don't believe you, our Government—prove it". What a thing to have your own colleagues say that. The Government putClause 12 in as their get-out to provide flexibility, as she said. That was not overwhelmingly popular with her honourable friends in another place, as she will know, but I suspect that it was seen as better than nothing.
	We must consider whether or not the affirmative procedure is appropriate. That will happen when we consider my Amendment No. 99. I am conscious not only of the time, as the Minister looks at the clock, but of the fact that my Chief Whip is sitting behind me. If I were to start voting against every Home Office affirmative order that I thought was plain wrong, I do not think that I would be long for this life. I hear what the Minister says and I know that she has done all she can to argue the Government's case. We remain adrift.
	Next week, if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is persuaded not to oppose the Question that Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill, when we reach my AmendmentNo. 99, I would be grateful if the Minister could show me any recent Home Office legislation in which the Government have sought to remove by order a clause that is fundamental to a Bill. We shall have to see whether that fits neatly with what they are seeking to do in this Bill. I could not research that, given my resources, but, no doubt, the Minister will have the facts at her fingertips.